Replies

This seems to be positive news, though sort of like a left-handed complement.

I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm. I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

I'm sure some legal-beagle will set me straight on this....

I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm. I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

In Oregon, the license actually issued is a "concealed handgun license", and the license course explains that this mean one can only carry a handgun. As a guy who firmly believes that a handgun is a far superior weapon to nunchuks, etc. this has never felt burdensome. OTOH, Nordyke is now the law of the land in oregon, so I expect to see challenges.

To me, the most interesting part of the 9th circuit decision is that they actually came right out and admitted that Heller squarely overturned Hickman. Hickman was a case brought against the State of California which challenged the arbitrary nature of California's "may issue" concealed weapons law. The ruling essentially said that because the RKBA was a collective right, Hickman had no standing to challenge the law. Well, that is no longer true, and I am hoping to see serious challenges to may-issue very soon, and I expect it will be struck down.

Now this is not an automatic victory, CA could just become a no-issue state, but too many minor politicians like their guns that the masses can not have.

Anyway, I am seeing a glimmer of hope that concealed carry in CA my be on the horizon.

ChicagahAl said: I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

Anti-gunners have attempted to redefine the word "arms" to mean only those weapons that a person could "bear". It's convenient for some of their purposes, but false.

I have challenged other posters several times to provide ANY federal law respecting ANY weapon during the first century of our republic's existence. Then, as now, "arms" includes every tool useful to a military in defeating an enemy.

Of recent interest were the various SALT treaties, which term stands for "Strategic ARMS Limitation Treaty". This use of the word "arms" to refer to nuclear weapons is perfectly consistent with the meaning intended by our Founders.

The Constitution, as originally written, included mechanisms for Congress to authorize the use of privately-owned warships against our nation's enemies. There is no indication that this reflected an intent to have the government supply such warships. The "arms" aboard such privately-owned ships were already in place to repel pirates. And the arms most certainly were not limited to only those firearms that a person could carry.

Those who would argue that nuclear arms are not "arms" as mentioned in the Second Amendment are simply denying the necessity to modify the Constitution if and when the need arises.

"I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm."

The term CCW is a general term. The actual license in Pennsylvania is an LTCF (License to carry firearm), hence it doesn't give you a permission to carry a switchblade.

"I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms"

I've tried to go to the writings of the founders to get some guidance on this. The only founder that goes into specificity that I know of is Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania congressman and in the first Congress so he actually voted on the Bill of Rights. When writing in a Philadelphia newspaper he said that Americans should have available every terrible weapon of the soldier. As you said, that would be rifles, handguns, swords etc... I don't think it means nuclear weapons, cannons or crew served weapons because your basic soldier did not have access to that. Reasonable people can disagree on this I suppose.

I think in the Miller case, the Supreme Court tried to use this standard though they came to the wrong conclusion. Their standard was what weapon would a soldier/militiaman be using. However, they incorrectly believed that a shotgun is not a weapon of a soldier/militiaman so it could be regulated/banned. It was a wrong conclusion because a shotgun has indeed been used many times in combat by soldiers for varying reasons.

I've often wondered why a CCW shouldn't also allow someone to carry nunchuks, a blackjack, a knife, a taser, or some other weapon or “arm”, besides a firearm. I suppose the strict interpretation of “arms” would be a firearm, though Revolutionary War officers carried swords or sabers, in addition to pistols, so edged weapons would seem to be "arms".

All those things are arms, but the terms of the government *permission* (CHL/CCP/CCW, which I have) to bear arms, generally exclude all but concealed handguns. But every state's laws are different. Are those exclusions, or the very requirement for state permission to carry arms Constitutional. Probably not. Although it's possible that if *open* carry were not restricted, as was the case when most of the early anti concealed carry laws were written, then licensing of concealed carry might be Constitutional. But OTOH, it still would be an "infringement" on the right to *bear* arms.